Yes, folks. We are apparently living in a time where the dead are allowed to come back to life in order to share their views (as long as it fits a certain narrative, of course) and vote (only for a particular candidate, of course) and get tested (positive for Covid, of course).
These are certainly interesting times, when even people who are alive that have a difference of opinion to the mainstream, are being shut out, censored, ridiculed and smeared.
Yet, for some reason, a voice was given to those who have passed away. I did not realize that the passion that these people have to get their points across could reach through the scientific barrier of conscious limitations and access the world of the living.
But here we are.
Perhaps in a world so filled with electricity and technology, their electromagnetic pulses were amplified, which gave them an ability to infiltrate the computerized systems of today’s age. Who knows? It’s not like someone is deliberately using these poor deceased individual’s names to further a certain agenda and enforce a certain conformity upon the rest of the population, right?
No, no. It’s more likely that these souls that have passed away decided that those of us that are still living needed more guidance and direction in the way that we’re heading, and in their utmost concern must have come back to help us make that decision by participating in the voting system, and/or getting tested for covid. Which is what allegedly happened to Troy Whittington’s Mom.
Here is Troy’s account on what happened, and a few other examples of the boundaries that the “dead” have crossed in order to make their statements…
Sandra Ann Whittington
Imagine Troy Whittington’s shock and dismay when he opened up a letter dated August 20, 2020, from the Shelby County Health Department that stated that his mother, Sandra Ann Whittington, tested positive for covid. It must have been quite the reaction, seeing as how his mother passed away on February 16, 2020.
When Troy called the Health Department to get answers, he was told that she took the test on June 20th. The lady he spoke with did not have any answers for him at the time, and told him that she would have to check in with her supervisor to provide any more information.
Troy also raises a few other good points on this egregious error:
“I would just like for the health department to be more accurate.” He added, “They have a record of her death there. That is where I got the death certificate from and it’s in the same building they’re sending out saying she is positive, which is not possible.”
Whittington also would like to point out, if his mom had been alive and tested positive, why did it take so long for the notification to go out?
“We’re talking two months later. She needs to be quarantined for 10, well we’ve got 60 days from the time of the test to get the letter out to her which is unacceptable,” said Whittington.
I definitely don’t mean to make light of the situation, but if Mrs. Whittaker was walking around somehow (even after being cremated), and went to get a covid test – which she was positive for – then she was still walking around for 2 months, allegedly without being quarantined, before she got her positive results back. …By that time the coronavirus would have run its course, and everyone she was in contact with in the meantime could have been exposed to this virus.
Now, of course with anything, one should always use critical thinking skills to try and determine the different possibilities on how this came about, so I can offer up a few:
– The most common would be a simple clerical error. More common than one would think. Perhaps someone with a name similar to that of Sandra Ann Whittington’s indeed went to get tested for the covid, and the clerk pulled up this particular Sandra’s name by mistake. It’s an easy error to make and I can see it happening. However, when dealing with a serious matter such as this, all necessary precautions should be taking place to avoid this possibility. (and that still wouldn’t account for the unnecessarily long wait time that the patient would have waited for the test results to come back. …Unless that was due to another clerical error as well.)
– An unfortunate glitch in the system. (Not the Matrix system… the computer system. Although for all conspiracy theory lovers out there, this is one that could be speculated upon.) This could happen as well, I would surmise. Not as likely, but possible nonetheless.
– This is a deliberate attempt to use deceased people’s names to rank the amount of positive covid results up. The likelihood of someone finding out that a deceased person’s name is on a “confidential” database is pretty low, and the amount of positive cases in a medical facility will perhaps boost funding, as has been described happening in numerous different outlets.
There are many more different possibilities than these, of course, but wanted to mention a few just off the top of my head.
There is also the reason that Alisa Haushalter gave to Troy Whittington, although even with that, it’s not as comforting or understandable as one would think:
According to the letter Director Haushalter sent to Whittington, “There were internal procedures regarding post-mortem testing by the Tennessee Department of Health that resulted in a positive test being reported to the Shelby County Health Department. Subsequently, the Shelby County Health Department issued the letter and you should not have received the letter.”
This seems very suspicious to me. Perhaps because I have a very cynical mind at times, this could indicate that the post-mortem testing was done for the sole purpose of finding “positive” covid cases from the deceased, so that they could send in these numbers to the CDC. After all, the letter states that Whittington “should not have received the letter” and instead should have just gone to the CDC.
Then, to make matters even worse, upon following up with the “initial testing”, found that Sandra Whittington had a “false positive”, so therefore did not have covid at all. …Well, that’s comforting, I guess. Or not, seeing as how if the tests are this unreliable, how do we determine which test was the legitimate one and which was showing false results?
I guess the fact of the matter is, dear Sandra Ann Whittington did not come back from the dead after all to administer to a covid test. Although she did apparently donate her body to science, so I guess in a way she did.
Well, I guess that’s one theory busted. At least in Sandra Whittington’s case. But we still have a few more instances in which I can show that the dead really did come back to announce their views.
Patty Duke (Anna Marie Duke / Anna Pearce)
Some may remember Patty Duke from, well, The Patty Duke Show. She also had quite the filmography as seen here imdb.com.
Unfortunately, she passed away on March 29, 2016 from sepsis, but that didn’t stop her from supporting the FCC agenda to end net neutrality (three separate times: May 24, 2017 / August 7, 2017 / August 8, 2017 …Oh wait. Hold up. At least 4 separate times. This one appearing under the name “Anna Pearce”, for August 7, 2017.)
Mackenzie Astin brought the attention of this outrageous fiasco out on twitter, calling out to the FCC and Ajit Pai to investigate how this happened.
Shockingly, he wasn’t the only one who had questions.
Not only did we have a case of a deceased person being extremely concerned with net neutrality, so much so that they had to file 4 separate forms to announce their opinions, but we also have cases of living people who are apparently leaving comments to the FCC government site without any recollection of having doing so.
Now, I’m not going to pretend to know everything about the FCC and the net neutrality aspect and regulations, because honestly it confuses the he11 out of me. If there’s anything I do know, it’s that you can’t trust politicians people, and people will often twist their words in order to make something unappealing, appealing. Or vice versa. (Or they’ll just flat out lie.)
So my issue with this is not about the whole Obama administration, or Thomas Wheeler, Ajit Pai, or who is for what and who is against what and such in regards to net neutrality, but it is to look at the deceptive tactics that are being used in order to push for a certain outcome.
The fact that not only are there multiple deceased people leaving comments on a government website in support of or in opposition of a certain bill, there are also accounts of plenty of living people who are being used, without their knowledge, to administer to a specific point of view.
Take the cases of Senator Jeff Merkley and Senator Pat Toomey. Both of their names were used, allegedly without their knowledge, in order to support ending net neutrality.
This is a fun case, because it’s very rare when you have two people on the opposite side of the spectrum, one a Democrat, the other a Republican, actually coming together to tackle a common cause.
Now even though it appears as if Pat Toomey is in support of ending net neutrality, at least he can agree upon the fact the subterfuge and manipulation enacted upon this particular bill with the usage of multiple people’s accounts (fake, live, dead, or otherwise) is a “deliberate misuse of Americans’ personal information”:
“The federal rulemaking process is an essential part of our democracy and allows Americans the opportunity to express their opinions on how government agencies decide important regulatory issues,” their letter said. “As such, we are concerned about the aforementioned fraudulent activity. We need to prevent the deliberate misuse of Americans’ personal information and ensure that the FCC is working to protect against current and future vulnerabilities in its system.”– washingtontimes.com
We finally get some answers on this blatant attempt at ending net neutrality, but not before some interesting confusion about an apparent false DDoS attack on the servers.
In May 2017 the FCC said it was hit with a distributed denial-of-service attack (DDoS) shortly after Last Week Tonight host John Oliver asked his viewers to leave comments in support of net neutrality. However, last month FCC Chairman Ajit Pai admitted that the agency was never hit by a DDoS attack and blamed an employee for providing “inaccurate information.”– cnet.com
Further citation from cnet.com alludes to the Russians being the culprit:
Pai’s acknowledgement that Russians played a role in last year’s net neutrality debate shows how widespread Russia’s campaign to influence US democracy extends. US intelligence and law enforcement have accused Russian groups of interfering in the 2016 presidential election by using stolen identities to pose as Americans on Facebook and Instagram, creating Facebook groups, buying divisive ads and posting inflammatory images.– cnet.com
Of course, that brings us to the question on why the Russians would be so interested in this agenda to begin with. Just for kicks and giggles? Their “history” into American interference has been quite an ongoing one, with the allegations of dabbling into the elections being a major one. But again, for what reason? They must have a purpose. Someone is, undoubtedly, perpetuating this agenda. Are we to simply trust Pai’s acknowledgement and allusion that “It was the Russians!”?
(So you’re telling me it wasn’t dead people coming back to life to hack into this system to support for ending net neutrality?)
Well, not so fast. There may be some hope still left. After all, even though so many headlines state that Ajit Pai said that the Russians were involved (in some way, shape or form), there was never really any proof of that. And the attempts of journalists and officials to urge Ajit Pai and the FCC to reveal evidence of this matter has fallen on deaf ears. You would think if they had undeniable proof that they were not the ones in control of this system manipulation, they would be eager to expose it. But alas, that did not happen.
– Contrary To Media Claims, There’s No Evidence Russia Was Behind Fake Net Neutrality Comments
– Ajit Pai Says It’s ‘Fact’ Russian Accounts Filed Net Neutrality Comments, But FCC Says Different in Court”
This site: pewresearch.org, breaks down the statistics on how often each comment was used, and the numbers of times it was submitted by certain various names. It is eye-opening, and should serve as a reminder to us all about the dangers and misrepresentation we could be seeing online on a day-to-day basis, even from those friends’ and families’ accounts we think we know (or our very own accounts…). It is also a reminder to us all that those we think are gone, still live on, apparently, and use their presence to try and sway the public opinion on matters of business preference…
It makes one wonder how often this very deceptive tactic has been used, not just in this arena, but in many others.
Which brings me to –
The Presidential Election
It’s no secret anymore. Dead people vote. If we could all just unite instead of constantly being divided, then we can come to the unanimous decision that Dead Lives Matter too, and we should respect their decision.
So what if an overwhelming amount of them “allegedly” voted Democrat this year?
After all, Joe Biden’s whole campaign program encompasses the “battle for the souls of the nation” and “souls to the polls”. And since we know what kind of turnout he received at his actual speeches (whether they were “invite only” and/or “from your car because of social distancing” or not), there is no argument that Trump’s turnout trumped his. But perhaps that’s because the eyes of the living couldn’t see all the dead people apparently at Joe Biden’s campaigns.
And, as we saw with the results of the voting, it looks like Mr. Biden got his wish. It seems as if numerous souls who have crossed over couldn’t help themselves as their adoration for Joe must have been so expansive, that their souls have literally transcended time and space to vote. Even if they died before this election; or even before Mr. Trump’s entire presidency, for that matter.
Records show that the elections board received an absentee ballot from a Frances Reckhow of Staten Island, a registered Democrat.
The BOE mailed an absentee ballot “requested” by Frances M. Reckhow of Bedell Avenue on Sept. 24.
But there’s a problem: Frances Reckhow, who was born on July 6, 1915, and would be 105 today, died in 2012, according to an obituary filed with the Staten Island Advance.
Despite dying 8 years ago, Reckhow supposedly mailed the ballot back on Oct. 6 and the BOE received it and declared it valid on Oct. 8, tracking records show.
And this article: Whistleblower Leaks Photo Of Dead People Born In The Year 1900 Voting In 2020 Presidential Election, alludes to the fact that numerous dead people were manually entered for an election poll queue program.
This, to be honest, is outrageous.
Are they implying that 100+ old people are obviously dead and can’t vote? Did these people manually check each person and make sure that they are physically dead, or did they just assume that because of their age? And even if they are dead, then what? They’re not allowed to vote?
This sounds to me like discrimination.
I thought, we, as a “united” nation, and working to be inclusive, can look beyond their “living capacity” and allow them their own opinion. (Well, seeing as how we can’t even do that with the living, I suppose it’s no wonder.)
The actions of “dead voters” have raised the eyebrows of many, and the allegations of voter fraud have run rampant this year. Many speculating that the democrats have rigged the election.
– Tucker Carlson: Yes, dead people voted in this election and Democrats helped make it happen
– Officials stop scheme to register dead voters as Democrats
– Thousands of Dead People Voting In PA: 100% For Biden – (Now, I wanted to point out that this headline is 100% misleading. While I do think that there was fraudulent activity going on behind this election, and that the democrats are by no means completely innocent in this scheme, and even if this title is 100% true, there is nothing in this article that can prove it. I specifically sought out an article like this one so that I can assess it and see if there was actual proof that these votes were being cast for Biden, specifically. There wasn’t any.
So again, please be aware of any type of misleading news. I decided to keep the article here, however, because I enjoyed the youtube video by Fleccas Talks (which is legitimate and not misleading) that it featured and wanted to show you how easy it is to be side-tracked by a title, especially if it aligns with the same view as you.)
Having said all of this, we can’t forget a couple of choice quotes from Mr. Joe Biden either:
– youtube.com/GOP War Room (I’m not sure how long this video will stay up, but it’s fun while it lasts. If this video gets removed, please let me know and I will replace it.)
“We’re in a situation where we have put together, and you guys did it for our administration…President Obama’s administration before this. We have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.” – Joe Biden
Who is Joe Biden talking to in this campaign? Is he talking to the fellow democrats that have helped him rig this election? The people in the audience? His campaign members?
Obviously not. We all know by now that he’s talking to the ghostly souls in the audience that are overwhelming in number but that none of us can see. Come on people. Think.
– youtube.com/The News Junkie’s Cartoons (Again, please let me know if this video gets removed and I will replace it.)
“Folks, we got a lotta work to do. I don’t need you to get me elected; I need you once I’m elected.” – Joe Biden
I know you don’t need us living, breathing souls to get you elected, since you’re using the dead’s apparent passion for a democratic election this year to do your work for you. But you need us once you are elected to do all of the heavy lifting, since we all know that ghosts can mostly just interfere with electronics and lightweight objects such as mail-in ballots, and not so much with the physical labor.
I’m onto you, Joe. I’m onto you.
I mean, this completely sounds legit. It’s not like Facebook has been known to run tests or experiments on its own users or anything: Facebook is way Creepier than we Thought
And it’s not like Mark Zuckerberg thinks we’re all idiots for using Facebook, right?
“They trust me. Dumb fvck$” (Mark’s words, not mine.)
Sure, sure, he was only 19 when he made that comment, and he claims to Jose Antonio Vargas, “I think I’ve grown and learned a lot” since he made those statements.
But then we have this lovely tidbit that Mark Zuckerberg is at least admitting it’s for research, and hey! he’s even willing to pay “select members” money for opting in on the experiment: Facebook will pay users to log off before 2020 election
It’s in the name of reasearch!
So of course it’s okay to manipulate and use subterfuge to experiment once again on the many unwitting Facebook users during and specifically concerning the election. One of the most important events of American heritage. (At least until people realize that the election/voting process is nothing more than an illusion… but this is not the time or place to discuss this particular speculation. Moving on!)
So, you know, to imply that Facebook would do anything nefarious to these “Legacy Contact” pages and perhaps leave dead people’s accounts running on bots/AI or anything of the like, is a grievous offense and I am appalled that such a theory is even considered about the good name of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, and his colleagues.
Oh… I’m the one making these silly theories? Well, my opinion still stands. It makes more sense to ignore all of these suspicious activities and just trust blindly to mega-corporations that make billions of dollars at our expense.
And, apparently, milking the dead for all they’re worth too.
Fact checking is extremely important. I want to reiterate not to take everything at face value; no matter what you read, where you read it from, or who you hear it from. And to be clear, do not rely on “fact checking” websites to give you accurate information either. These are just as likely, (if not even more likely…), to feed false information and false debunking accounts to manipulate the reader. Please take everything into consideration before adhering to a certain narrative – and always keep your mind open to other possibilities.
Fair use disclaimer: Some of the links from this article are provided from different sources/sites to give the reader extra information and cite the sources, but does not necessarily mean that I endorse the contents of the site itself. Additionally, I have tried to provide links to the contents that I used from other sites as an educational and/or entertainment means only; if you feel that any information deserves further citation or request to be clarified, please let me know through the contact page.